Tesla, New York Times trade shots over Model S coverage (Updated)

Elon Musk writes a scathing review of the review and consumers get left in the dark.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken to the official blog of the electric car company to respond to criticism of the company's Model S sedan published by the New York Times. In an article published February 8, The Times' John Broder criticized the car's cold-weather mileage on a test drive from Washington, DC up Interstate 95. In a series of Twitterupdates on February 11, Musk declared the article "fake," and he pledged to detail "what actually happened" on the company blog.

Broder's account, titled "Stalled Out on Tesla's Electric Highway," relays the journey from DC to Boston along I-95, which has been newly fitted with Tesla's Supercharger stations, claimed to be the fastest stations available. At these, Model S owners can recharge at 4.5 times the normal rate, allowing a half-charge of the battery in half an hour for a range of 150 miles. Tesla provides the electricity free of charge.

The first East Coast Supercharge stations are strategically located at Newark, Delaware and Milford, Connecticut. The 200-odd miles between the two should be well within the capability of a 85-kWh Model S given its claimed range: 265 miles according to fueleconomy.gov and 300 miles at 55mph according to Tesla.

Broder’s side

Setting out from the suburbs of DC with a full charge, Broder reports that the temperature was 30°F. According to his account, he arrived at the Newark Supercharger station with roughly a half charge remaining. There he topped up to a full charge once more. However, by the time Broder was 20 miles out from the second Supercharger at Milford, the estimated mileage was 10 miles. He made it to the Supercharger, but only barely, and despite having followed Tesla's range-maximization advice which included employing cruise control when the estimated range started to look hairy earlier in that leg of the journey.

At Milford, Broder spent "nearly" an hour recharging the Model S to the point that its estimated range was 185 miles, which he describes as being "well beyond" the next stage of the trip. The next stage is a little convoluted. Broder's intention was to travel to Stonington, Connecticut for dinner, stopping overnight at Groton on the way back to Milford for another charge the next morning, before a final leg to New York. Google Maps puts the round trip of Milford to Milford, via Stonington and Groton, at 142 miles.

By the time Broder stopped at Groton for the night, he reports that the Model S was reporting a remaining range of 79 miles. However, by the next morning, when the mercury showed 10°F outside, this had dropped to 25 miles. Following Tesla's advice, Broder ran the heat in the car for a half hour to condition the battery, after which the estimated range had fallen to 19 miles, effectively stranding Broder in Groton. However, Tesla tracked down a (non-Super) charging facility in Norwich "only 11 miles away." There, Broder says he was cleared by Tesla to set out for Milford after an hour's charging. He made it as far as Branford before the car shut down, the battery having run completely flat. The Model S was carried the rest of the way to Milford by a flatbed truck. From there, Broder was able to recharge for an "uneventful" drive to Manhattan.

Musk’s Beef

Ever since a Tesla Roadster was depicted running out of juice in a segment of the BBC's Top Gear TV show in 2008, Musk claims that data logging is enabled in all of its vehicles when used for test drives by members of the media. Such data-logging was apparently enabled for this trip.

In a blog post titled "A Most Peculiar Test Drive," Musk presents a series of annotated graphs labeled the "Vehicle Logs" for the trip. Tesla told Ars that this was the rawest form available. Above these, Musk gives a bulleted lists of "facts" that contradicted Broder's account. Among these are the claim that at no stage did the Model S run out of charge.

Musk also claims that for the "final" 61-mile leg, the charge cable was disconnected with the Model S reporting a range of 32 miles, "in obvious violation of common sense." Here, Musk is referring to the Norwich charge, his quoted figures coming from a graphical companion to the article published by the Times. Broder's original story does not state the estimated range displayed by the Model S as he left Norwich, which would seem to be the most crucial figure of them all. The same article graphic states that the Model S traveled 51 miles before shutting down at Branford.

Musk additionally claims that Broder never activated cruise control and that he took a detour into downtown Manhattan before his first arrival at the Milford Supercharger. There, Musk asserts, "instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."

Clear as mud

If the figures quoted in the accompanying graphic are correct, then it does seem strange that Broder departed on a leg of approximately 60 miles with an estimated range of 32 miles on the clock. Ars has asked the Times for clarification of this latter figure.

However, Musk's point about a Manhattan detour seems more dubious given that this is barely out of Broder's way. In a follow-up post on the Times' Wheels blog, Broder says that this added 2 miles to his journey. As for driving in circles around the parking lot, Broder told the Daily Intelligencier that he was "looking for the unmarked and unlighted Supercharger port in the dark."

As for Musk's most damning charge, that the battery of the vehicle was never drained, this has been flatly disputed by Rogers Automotive & Towing, the company that provided the flatbed to rescue Broder. Talking to Jalopnik, Donna Rogers said that the company's records show that the battery was completely dead.

There are further points of dispute in Musk's response and Broder's follow-up (plus analysis from the Atlantic Wire), but those recounted above seem most fundamental. Tesla is declining to comment beyond Musk's blog post.

Update: The author of the New York Times story replied to Elon Musk's blog this afternoon, addressing one of Musk's most puzzling accusations—that Broder expected the Model S to reach a station 61 miles away when the car read that it has 32 miles on a charge. Broder says that the Tesla lost much of its charge overnight, and Tesla employees "told me that an hour of charging (at a lower power level) at a public utility in Norwich, Conn., would give me adequate range to reach the Supercharger 61 miles away."

When the car only read 32 miles to the charge after that hour, Broder proceeded to drive to the next charging station, as Tesla employees had earlier claimed that "moderate-speed driving would 'restore' the battery power lost overnight."

Update 2: CNN's Peter Valdes-Dapena has completed a test drive up I-95 from D.C. the full way to Boston. He reports that he completed the longest individual leg, the 200 miles between the Superchargers of Milford and Newark, with an estimated range of 40 miles remaining. This was despite missing an exit, though to extend range, he did employ cruise control and limit the climate control to 72°F. However, without an overnight stop in below-freezing temperatures, this is far from a repeat of Broder's test, though it is arguably more representative of the way Model S owners are likely to drive the I-95.

359 Reader Comments

I'm with Musk on this one; the NYT author proved himself hostile to electric cars in a prior segment, and in his pathetic "rebuttal", the NYT refused to address the fact that despite supposedly testing this car as his "daily driver", willfully refused to charge it as recommended, even going so far as to drive past charging stations as the car was giving him warnings.

EDITed to add:

Musk also details how the Top Gear segment wrote the "break down" of their vehicle into the script even before the test drive happened, as discovered by Tesla when they found a script left by one of the Top Gear crew.

Musk has a right to be angry; not only did Top Gear intentionally misrepresent the reliability and range of his company's flagship product, the NYT now has as well. Thankfully for the rest of us, Tesla took the time to log data about their test-drives after the Top Gear incident.

"She says that their records indicate the car's battery pack was completely drained."

What records. All that means is that the call they received for a tow, had a stated reason as "battery drained"

A towing company has no means to test or confirm such. Second, when my wife needed a jump in our 1st generation Prius. She had to argue for 20 minutes that the battery was in the trunk. They couldn't find it. And refused to listen to her. Called a second tow truck operator. Who still was clueless. After 30 minutes of arguing, they listened to my wife. Lo and behold they found the batter in the trunk.

That's a point I saw elsewhere. How would a towing company have the means to determine if the battery was dead? As noted by Musk, the car was driven even after the range estimator reached zero.

"She says that their records indicate the car's battery pack was completely drained."

What records. All that means is that the call they received for a tow, had a stated reason as "battery drained"

A towing company has no means to test or confirm such. Second, when my wife needed a jump in our 1st generation Prius. She had to argue for 20 minutes that the battery was in the trunk. They couldn't find it. And refused to listen to her. Called a second tow truck operator. Who still was clueless. After 30 minutes of arguing, they listened to my wife. Lo and behold they found the batter in the trunk.

That's a point I saw elsewhere. How would a towing company have the means to determine if the battery was dead? As noted by Musk, the car was driven even after the range estimator reached zero.

"She says that their records indicate the car's battery pack was completely drained."

What records. All that means is that the call they received for a tow, had a stated reason as "battery drained"

A towing company has no means to test or confirm such. Second, when my wife needed a jump in our 1st generation Prius. She had to argue for 20 minutes that the battery was in the trunk. They couldn't find it. And refused to listen to her. Called a second tow truck operator. Who still was clueless. After 30 minutes of arguing, they listened to my wife. Lo and behold they found the batter in the trunk.

That's a point I saw elsewhere. How would a towing company have the means to determine if the battery was dead? As noted by Musk, the car was driven even after the range estimator reached zero.

There are two separate battery systems. The drivetrain (with the big batteries) and everything else (with a small battery). If the small battery failed then things like the parking brake would be stuck on, and the car would be immovable, even if the big battery was showing that it held some charge.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

I have been following this over on Autoblog, which has had good coverage of everything.

The NYT author has already shown he is very anti-electric car (For whatever reason), and all the points that Musk points out basically show the author was trying to exaggerate in some areas, and straight up lie in others.

It makes perfect sense that Tesla enabled data loggers for any media drives/reviews. Especially after Top gear was caught in a lie that the roadster ran out of charge. Yes it can be argued that Top gear is scripted, but its presented in a way that makes it look unscripted.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

That's not the point. Obviously electric cars have limitations and problems.

But the real issue is that the article writer in the NYT _might_ be outright lying and sabotaging his test drive to make it look worse than it is. I find that to be a serious issue.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

That isn't the issue; the author claimed he drove at a leisurely 45mph, but in reality was going 54mph, and as fast as ~80mph. The claim is significant because the vehicle uses less power at 45mph than at 54mph (or 80mph), thus attempting to misrepresent the actual range of the vehicle.

To put it simply, the NYT author lied - throughout his entire article.

So Musk's assertion is that he had a car that was functioning and yet decided to have it towed? I have a little trouble buying that and think Musk comes off looking like a douche.

It happened before on Top Gear, he's right to be twitchy

Top Gear intentionally faked that one as well, pushing a perfectly functional vehicle. Tesla employees managed to get a copy of the script, and the "failure" of the Model S was written in before the test drive even occurred.

I am all for electric cars, mostly because I would love to see the oil companies take a hit if alternative fuel sources catch on, but unless they have something entertaining to do at their supercharger station I have a really hard time justifying a 30 minute wait for a half a tank of gas. Sure it'll save me money, but my time may be worth more to me than that.

That said, Broder only responds to some of Musk's points, and many of the responses sound like he realizes he has been "found out" and is trying to cover his actions. He also spends a few sentences proving he has little if any business reporting on vehicles by not understanding how tire and wheel combinations work in relation to the speedometer.

First he didn't fully charge in Milford, intending to cut it close to save charging time, then he ignored common sense and didn't plug in overnight. The following day, he may have received bad advise from Tesla regarding how the projected range will improve as the battery warms up (I wouldn't really take him at his word for this), but he really put himself in a situation for failure before that point, which was further exasperated by him choosing to drive right past a charging station even though the cars projected range indicated he wouldn't make it to the Supercharger station.

Had he a) fully charged in Milford, b) plugged the car in overnight, or c) charged at the station he drove past, he would have had no problems. I don't know if this was done out of malice or stupidity, but he created the situation himself.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

That isn't the issue; the author claimed he drove at a leisurely 45mph, but in reality was going 54mph, and as fast as ~80mph. The claim is significant because the vehicle uses less power at 45mph than at 54mph (or 80mph), thus attempting to misrepresent the actual range of the vehicle.

To put it simply, the NYT author lied - throughout his entire article.

Except the log shows that the author did go at about 45 mph at a number of points; at around 250 miles into the journey, at around 400 miles, and at about 520 miles. It wasn't sustained driving at 45 mph, but it was certainly limping along.

The author also states the car was freezing when it was in fact 64-70+ degrees.

He has quite a few lies that seem clear. Musk however all misses a few times with his punches (the .6 mile donut bit in particular).

On the whole though, the article is clearly full of some verifiable BS. The not cold car. The not cruise control. The not 55 miles per hour driving. Being "stranded" after going on a 60 mile trip with 30 mile range (and almost making it anyways by going 50 miles).

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

That isn't the issue; the author claimed he drove at a leisurely 45mph, but in reality was going 54mph, and as fast as ~80mph. The claim is significant because the vehicle uses less power at 45mph than at 54mph (or 80mph), thus attempting to misrepresent the actual range of the vehicle.

To put it simply, the NYT author lied - throughout his entire article.

... Or the Tesla CEO is lying or does not have all (or the correct) information.

Just because the car decided it didn't have enough power doesn't necessarily contradict that the battery was never drained (those are two separate things).

Just because the logs say one thing does not mean that the reality was another.

Just because the CEO is saying that he was not following directions given by his personnel doesn't mean he has 100% knowledge of every conversation the author had with the Tesla personnel, nor the exact wording which may have been contradictory or confusing.

This isn't as black and white as people here are trying to make it out to be.

First he didn't fully charge in Milford, intending to cut it close to save charging time, then he ignored common sense and didn't plug in overnight. The following day, he may have received bad advise from Tesla regarding how the projected range will improve as the battery warms up (I wouldn't really take him at his word for this), but he really put himself in a situation for failure before that point, which was further exasperated by him choosing to drive right past a charging station even though the cars projected range indicated he wouldn't make it to the Supercharger station.

Had he a) fully charged in Milford, b) plugged the car in overnight, or c) charged at the station he drove past, he would have had no problems. I don't know if this was done out of malice or stupidity, but he created the situation himself.

The point was to be using the supercharger stations. Stopping at a non-supercharger station would defeat the point of the test.

I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

The point isn't that you need to drive 54mph... it's that the reviewer claimed he did and, instead, drove 81mph.

The point isn't that you have to drive 45mph either -- as the reviewer said he did 'limping home' -- it's that the reviewer lied because the logs show he was traveling 60-70mph during that time period.

The point isn't that you can't have the temp set to 74, it's that the reviewer said he turned it down from 72... and in fact turned it up.

The point isn't that you can't drive 61 miles... it's that the reviewer prematurely ended the charging multiple times (and then waited for a while before leaving -- so could have easily kept it charging) and went out of his way to attempt to make the car fail (including driving in circles)... and even when he claims it had 'failed'... it had not.

There are a myriad of things the reviewer did that were flat out lies.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

Nope. We're actually siding with data. The data shows some minor and then a few BLATANT errors in Broder's reporting. I had reserved judgement on this until I saw actual data, and the evidence is pretty damning.

I was initially feeling disappointed at Tesla, now I'm extremely disappointed in New York Times and their fact checking. There should have been two people in that car at all times-- probably would've ended up being a better test as well.

If the NYTimes has done reviews of gasoline powered cars where they fill the tank with just a little bit less gas than is required to get to the destination, and then drives the car until it's empty, then I would consider the Tesla review to be fair.

But as it is, charging the car less than full and driving off anyway seems a bit malicious. Particularly if the car is telling you exactly how many miles it can go, and you call them up and they tell you it needs additional charge, and you still go anyway? Is the concept of fuel that hard to understand?

The point isn't that you can't have the temp set to 74, it's that the reviewer said he turned it down from 72... and in fact turned it up.

Musk's own graph clearly show that he turned the temperature down, to a positively unpleasant 64.5 degrees F, and later to a marginally more tolerable 66 degrees F.

Quote:

The point isn't that you can't drive 61 miles... it's that the reviewer prematurely ended the charging multiple times (and then waited for a while before leaving -- so could have easily kept it charging) and went out of his way to attempt to make the car fail (including driving in circles)... and even when he claims it had 'failed'... it had not.

The "driving in circles" claim is adequately addressed by the reviewer. And the claim that it had "failed" is corroborated by the towing company.

First he didn't fully charge in Milford, intending to cut it close to save charging time, then he ignored common sense and didn't plug in overnight. The following day, he may have received bad advise from Tesla regarding how the projected range will improve as the battery warms up (I wouldn't really take him at his word for this), but he really put himself in a situation for failure before that point, which was further exasperated by him choosing to drive right past a charging station even though the cars projected range indicated he wouldn't make it to the Supercharger station.

Had he a) fully charged in Milford, b) plugged the car in overnight, or c) charged at the station he drove past, he would have had no problems. I don't know if this was done out of malice or stupidity, but he created the situation himself.

The point was to be using the supercharger stations. Stopping at a non-supercharger station would defeat the point of the test.

Yes, but the author also went against Tesla's advice, and against "common" sense, willfully neglecting to charge the vehicle overnight. Additionally, he doesn't address that point in his main article OR his "rebuttal".

So Musk's assertion is that he had a car that was functioning and yet decided to have it towed? I have a little trouble buying that and think Musk comes off looking like a douche.

It happened before on Top Gear, he's right to be twitchy

Top Gear intentionally faked that one as well, pushing a perfectly functional vehicle. Tesla employees managed to get a copy of the script, and the "failure" of the Model S was written in before the test drive even occurred.

It's tv, of course it's scripted. They drive each car for a while in advance. They get to know the car. Then they write a script to give a sense to the viewer what it is like to live with the car. Then they film the script. They do that with all cars. They are critical of all cars. Only Tesla can't handle any critique.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

Nope. We're actually siding with data. The data shows some minor and then a few BLATANT errors in Broder's reporting. I had reserved judgement on this until I saw actual data, and the evidence is pretty damning.

I was initially feeling disappointed at Tesla, now I'm extremely disappointed in New York Times and their fact checking. There should have been two people in that car at all times-- probably would've ended up being a better test as well.

First he didn't fully charge in Milford, intending to cut it close to save charging time, then he ignored common sense and didn't plug in overnight. The following day, he may have received bad advise from Tesla regarding how the projected range will improve as the battery warms up (I wouldn't really take him at his word for this), but he really put himself in a situation for failure before that point, which was further exasperated by him choosing to drive right past a charging station even though the cars projected range indicated he wouldn't make it to the Supercharger station.

Had he a) fully charged in Milford, b) plugged the car in overnight, or c) charged at the station he drove past, he would have had no problems. I don't know if this was done out of malice or stupidity, but he created the situation himself.

The point was to be using the supercharger stations. Stopping at a non-supercharger station would defeat the point of the test.

If he was testing the supercharger stations, he should have fully charged at them. Seems like common sense. He purposely cut it close and got burned.

To reiterate my previous comment, had he a) fully charged in Milford (at the supercharger station), he would have had no problems.

So we're siding with Tesla here? Even though, whether both sides are telling the complete truth, there are legitimate complaints with the vehicle? I mean, living in Vermont, I have to at least side with the author regarding climate controls, and expecting someone to drive 54 mph on a road posted at 65 (and where people routinely drive 80+) really sours any interest I might have in Tesla.

That isn't the issue; the author claimed he drove at a leisurely 45mph, but in reality was going 54mph, and as fast as ~80mph. The claim is significant because the vehicle uses less power at 45mph than at 54mph (or 80mph), thus attempting to misrepresent the actual range of the vehicle.

To put it simply, the NYT author lied - throughout his entire article.

When reviewing other cars we don't expect the reviewer to always engage in hypermiling techniques, not sure why driving an EV should be any different.

And who knows, maybe the author has a weird blood condition that causes his feet to freeze even when Teslas data shows the inside to be 64-70+.

And maybe he's just so bad at math he takes cars that say they have 30miles of range for 60mile trips and can't compute why it failed. And fails to stop to charge at a non supercharge station even though he already did that once and claims he knows the car wouldn't make it by the end.

And maybe he just mis-remembered when he gave exact charge times to the minute, that were off by 20%.